FPHandbook_issue5

8/9/2019 FPHandbook_issue5

1/27

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANSforLIBERTY

ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue V | August 20

Leaving the Graveyard

p. 20

War Shifts: Pakistan

Pakistan Leaked!

p. 12

General Difficulties

p. 5


2/27

The Young Americans for Libertys

Foreign Policy

Handbook

August 2010


3/27Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | June 2010

Contents

YAL MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committewinning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direcf our government.

YAL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, libend property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individnd directed by we the people.

We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and uct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace rosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen.

We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed ragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controrip. And, for this we do not stand.

Editor in ChiefRoy Antoun

Contributors

Gabriel Aquino

Ryan Bell

Brian Beyer

Marissa Yturralde-Gianno

Jeremy Davis

Brendon DeMeo

Jihan Huq

Elliot Engstrom

Daniel Suraci

Undeniably HypocriticalBy Gabriel Aquino

General DifficultiesBy Ryan Bell

Afghanistan: Forever a PawnBy Brian Beyer

Pakistan LeakedBy Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Chalmers Johnsons NemesisBy Jeremy Davis

Foreign Aid Horror FilesBy Brendon DeMeo

Terrorists or Insurgents?By Jihan Huq

Leaving the GraveyardBy Elliot Engstrom

Uganda BombingsBy Daniel Suraci

3

5

9

12

14

17

18

20

22

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222021


4/27

Letter From the EditorDear Reader,

As neoconservatives continue their world-dominating agenda, taxpayers in the United Statesare paying for undeclared, expensive wars.

In the past decade, the U.S. has engaged in twoundeclared wars and now the battle spreads intoPakistan. American military funding has doubledsince 2000 and, today, the country is happily runninga deficit.

Governments will always find excuses for warbecause war is the health of the state. Wars generaterevenue for the government through taxation and themoney is spent frivolously on government programs,waste, and the military-industrial-complex.

While many conservatives and neoconservatives preach small govern-ment, they never hesitate to say that they are willing to give up a portion ofheir income in order for government to keep them safe. But has government

een keeping them safe? Why are we so willing to give government powerver our own lives if it can hardly control its own spending habits?

Now that American soldiers are engaging terrorists in Pakistan, its hard

o say that perpetual war is keeping us safe if the world is left in constant tur-moil. With Europe finding homegrown terrorists in its backyard and the U.S.elying on citizens (not Homeland Security) to find threats like the Christmasomber and the Times Square bomber, I have to ponder: Ifthese wars abroad

were stopping the terrorists, why do they keep popping up?

Roy M. AntounNew York State Chairman,Young Americans for Liberty

Want to write for theForeign Policy Handbook?Contact [email protected]

Find us on the web:

http://yaliberty.org

Find us on Facebook

http://facebook.com/yaliberty

Follow us on Twitter

http://twitter.com/yaliberty

Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth

he objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American

oreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected

eaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interven-

onism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying

he price in blood and gold.

While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express

he views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose

ny candidate for office.

http://www.foreignpolicyhandbook.c

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010 [email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222022


5/27

ommentary| Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

One of the longest and most expensive terrorist investiga-

ions in British history came to an end in July, when threemen: Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Waheed Khan, and Waheed

aman were found guilty of a 2006 plot to attack seven trans-

Atlantic airliners bound for the United States and Canada with

quid explosives. This trial follows up the convictions of

hree other men in a similar trial last year, bringing to at-

ention an urgency of action, by British authorities. Their

onviction has sparked some international outrage re-

arding the clarity of evidence, testimony, and ver-

ict.

Scotland Yard divulged specifics regarding the

nvestigation, noting that it was their most elabo-

ate effort ever mounted, costing nearly $40 mil-

on. During the time period when the investigation

ook place, over 29 surveillance teams were de-

loyed to observe the plotters.

Furthermore, the report of this plot has

reatly impacted the international commu-

ity's stance on airline security. Since then,

irline authorities have laced tight restrictions

pon the size and type of liquids and creams

hat passengers can take onto flights. Meas-

ures like these were introduced after the Sept. 11 attacks in

United States, and were replicated worldwide.

Considering that the die has been cast, let's observe th

an informative experiment in the hamster cage that is inte

tional relations, shall we?Western imperialist rhetoric supposes that, in ord

deter Islamic "terrorists" from continuing to attack w

western nations, military forces must be deployed to

nations (conquest of Persia, coming soon!), but not

essarily the nations of origin for the aforementi

terrorists. The occupying force will give the terro

something to chew on within their home country as

defend their homes, their families, and their wa

life... wait, no... The occupying force will fight in

nitely against the nativist scourge insurgency.

occupying Western force will defend their coufrom another country, protecting the freedoms

have been left alone by the increasingly large p

state in their country will fight to prevent the in

tion of "terrorist" cells who are active on the o

side of the world. Makes perfect sense, right?

What good would it do to keep the milita

home, to defend security? Why not just bee

local police forces?

What better way to protect civil liberties

the "terrorists" hate than to keep them under

Gabriel Aquino


Undeniably Hypocritica


6/27


and key with new security measures?

The "terrorists" won't relent, so let's

ontinue to send young men and women into harms way to

eter their presence at home

.but the "terrorists" are still plotting attacks in the west?

How can that be? Western military forces are killing "hostiles"

aily.

Why is it still happening? Aren't there plenty of targets

o shoot at in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

Western occupation has existed in the Middle East since the

800s, starting with the British Empire. Since then, anti-

Western sentiments, tied to fringe elements of Islam, began

nd have grown. So where is the validity of progress, causa-

ion, or even correlation, in the interventionist argument?

Occupying Middle Eastern nations for decades has only led

o escalated action on both sides. Is there any incentive for

hese "terrorists" to quit? Surely not, for psychologically, the

Middle Eastern constituencies ripest for terrorist action are

ave had a first-hand account of Western imperialism. Very

arely is fundamentalism the sole factor. In this case however,

many of the "terrorists" found in Europe are "home-grown

seems to be that the "home-grown" cells have felt the plig

their brothers and sisters a world away, or are rejecting

fusion of tightening security and heightened suspicion o

Islamic community in European countries.

One cannot reject the obvious, these cells that have

convicted of plots in European nations did not meet

European military forces on the battlefield. In fact, they

tirely bypassed the "preemptive war" meant for them, a

with a load of empty interventionist rhetoric.

If only stubborn overlords and appointed bureau

elected officials would make some sense of it all, and

common sense, along with the outcry of the citizenry. Th

lution is simply this: There are people thousands of m

away, infuriated with Western Imperialism. Give them not

to be upset about, and in the period of time that the Wes

nations should consider a period of humble diplomacy

military would not be deployed abroad, but at home for s

rity. Deal?


iot police in England: the most apparent danger to liberty is state control. When wars overseas give bloated governments excuses to control society, the ptate becomes your backyard. Photo source: www.digitaljournal.com

Welcome to the Police State

Aquino, continued


7/27



In an article written by freelance

ournalist Michael Hastings, "The Run-

way General", appearing in issue no.

108/1109 ofRolling Stone magazine

July 822 2010), McChrystal and his staff

mocked civilian government officials, in-

luding Joe Biden, National Security Advi-

or James L. Jones, US Ambassador to Af-

hanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, and Special

Representative for Afghanistan and Paki-

tan Richard Holbrooke.McChrystal was

ot quoted as being directly criti-

al of the president or the

resident's policies, but

everal comments from his

ides in the article re-

lected their perception of

McChrystal's disappoint-

ment with Obama on the

irst two occasions of their meeting.McChrystal's staff was

ontacted prior to release of the article and did not deny the

alidity of the article, though senior members of his staffispute this, and have accused Hastings of exaggerating the

eniority of aides quoted and breaking the "off the record"

rust of private conversations.

The statements attributed to McChrystal and members

f his staff drew the attention of the White House when

McChrystal called Biden to apologize. McChrystal issued a

written statement, saying:

I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was amistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have

appened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the prin-iples of personal honor and professional integrity. Whats reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. Iave enormous respect and admiration for President

Obama and his national security team, and for the civilianeaders and troops fighting this war and I remain commit-ed to ensuring its successful outcome.

Biden's call to tell him of the apology prompted

Obama to request a copy of the profile and then to summon

McChrystal to attend in person the president's monthly se-

urity team meeting at the White House in lieu of attending

via secure video teleconference. During a brief mee

with Obama on June 23, two days before the arti

was released to newsstands, McChrystal tenderhis resignation, which the president accepted.

Shortly thereafter, Obama nominated Gen-

eral David Petraeus to replace McChrystal in hi

role as top commander in Afghanistan. Obama's

statement on the topic began as follows:

"Today I accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resign

tion as commander of the International Security A

tance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with consid

able regret, but also with certainty that it is

right thing for our mission in Afghastan, for our military and for

country."

Later that day

McChrystal released th

following statement:

This morning the pres

dent accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. a

NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly supp

the president's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply

committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations,

and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this co

mitmentand a desire to see the mission succeedthat

tendered my resignation. It has been my privilege and

honor to lead our nation's finest.

Shortly after his removal from command in Af-

ghanistan, McChrystal announced that he would retire f

the Army.The day after the announcement, the White

House announced that he would retain his four-starrank in retirement, although law generally requires a ge

eral officer to hold their rank for three years in order to

tain it in retirement. His retirement ceremony was held

July 23, 2010 at Fort McNair in Washington D.C. Durin

this ceremony, McChrystal was awarded the Distin-

guished by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and

the Defense Distinguished Service Medal by Gates.

General DifficultiesRyan Bell

General Stanley A. McChrystal received heavy flak from Washington after being inter-viewed for a controversial article published by Rolling Stone Magazine.

You can find the original Rolling Stone article here:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236


8/27


Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Af-

hanistan, has seized control of the war by never takingis eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the WhiteHouse.

By all means, question McChrystals judgment inmaking derisive comments about his boss, the Com-mander in Chief. In fact, McChrystal was right to chal-enge the president.

General McChrystals main mistake was to apologizeor the remarks he made in Rolling Stone. As you willbserve, this isnt the first occasion that General

McChrystal has used interview commentary or theress, in one fashion or another, to force theand of a Commander-In-Chief to do what isest for the troops that serve under him.

Every time General McChrystal hasaken such an action, he has done sonowing that both his command andis career were at risk. Yet, like arue leader; General McChrystalook that risk after thoughtful in-rospection on what course was

most proper for the good of theations and his troops. So, al-

hough I wish hed stand firm andot waiver in the slightest on hisommentary, I forgive him for a

minor tremble during such a majorvent in his life. Some commenta-

tors have suggested that this was a near treasonous (and equaunprofessional) act committed by this four-star general and th

such discontent would have been better relayed in private toPresident and those in other relevant positions.

We must not forget however that this is somthing thatwould bedeemed un-necessary,and can beseen, achoice withpotential for

the tarnishingof his reputa-

tion and that ofthe war itself

when publicized in thisfashion. We must ask ifGeneral McChrystalwould have ever considered such an option as valid unless h

views were not being ignored or otherwise completely disrgarding in those very same private sessions.

Just as the famed MacArthur ultimately lost his batwith President Truman and his war policy of appeasemwhich averted a confrontation with China, but also set

stage for the prolonged carnage of Vietnam, GeneralMcChrystal will lose his battle with President Obama

The recalling of General McChrystal was not just ffireside chat with President Obama; nor is it for a typchewing session by the Commander-in-Chief. Genera


Washington vs. McChrystalBell, continued

Richard Holbrooke, special representat

Afghanistan and Pakistan, was highly dliked by Gen. McChrystal.


9/27


McChrystal was recalled to be fired fromis position. General McChrystal has

aken from the President the politicaloice in the execution of warfare andared, whether it was intentional or not,

or the President to confront him in de-ate by expressing his opinion in this pub-cized manner. This was not something

Obama, or any President, could simplygnore.

Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, butlso understandably, the President willot give him that debate; nor should heut of respect for the long standing prin-iple of civilian rule over the mili-ary. Albeit I believe that, given some nec-

ssary prerequisites, we should let themilitary do its job to the best of its abilitywith as little political

nd bureaucratic red-tape as possible.What this really comes down to is that

t would not be appropriate for the Presi-ent to redress these criticisms on the

American stage in some off-color grand-tand which would eventually do nothingut add more media headlines and likelyreate further consequences for ourroops abroad in the form of mishandledolicy in an effort to suppress suspicions

among thepopulace. After

all, the wars in theMiddle East create

enough derogatory headlinesall on their own.

This is not thekey issue, yet it further

illustrates the realitythat we should notengage in warswe are not will-

ing to fight to theend, with the fullest

extent of resourcesour nation has to offer, to

limit the number of Ameri-can deaths as much as is

plausible, and to dowhat must be doneto accomplish our

mission as quickly

and as effectively aspossible...andthen leave.

Unfortu-nately these

wars havebeen a mire ofdeception, na-tion building,resource ex-ploitation, con-

troversial weap-ons and drug

deals, unconstitutional provisions, politi-

cal scapegoats and a particu-larly grandiose highlight of the wide-spread problems within our civilian gov-ernment, our intelligence agencies, andparticularly within our own military es-tablishment.

One can hardly blame the Democrat-controlled Whitehouse for taking a hard-ened stance against this outburst, espe-cially when its voters, as well as our ownPresident have run the field unabashedwith laying all of the ills of these wars atthe feet of our previous administration.They have been hard pressed to accept

the responsibility for our current failureson the front as being derivative of thecurrent administrative troupe.

General McChrystal knows all of this.He is acutely aware of Generals such asGeorge C. Patton and Douglas MacAr-thur. As American warriors of distinctionhe holds a deep admiration and respectfor their standards of excellence and fortheir accomplishments in battles foughtall over the world. He understands howthese two men in particular were re-spected, loved and at all times in full

command of their troops, who often wfar above any expectations in performance of their duties. General McChrylike Patton and MacArthur, is a warriand a visionary leader who wants to wnot capitulated, and certainly does nowish to leave the job unfinished.

Until nohe has b

relativelunknowHowevewe will hand learmore abhim as t

passes. In my view, General McChryshas not only taken on the President athe wimps in Washington such as SenJohn Kerry; but hes also sent a messto his fellow generals that a war strateof shedding American blood and treawith the goal of hand-tied warfare an

appeasement can no longer be toleratWe have reached a point in historywhere if we are to engage in warfare imust be of necessity to win. Our new mies are of the ideological nature of tJapanese in World War 2. If we wish wage war against them we must be abto outlast them, being firm in our belthat we hold moral superiority in ourforts or we will have sealed our own fAs in Korea and Vietnam whereguerilla fighters often disguised thselves to fit in among the locals to kill and gain sympathy from a gu

press and shake weak, panicked p


We have reached a point in

history where if we are toengage in warfare it must be

of necessity to win.

www.Interest Of The State.com

Redefining the National Interest

Gen. McChrystal was a big advocate fornation-building. He wanted his troops toassimilate with the population by living withe population. Photo: John Moore / AP


10/27


ians and Presidents, we need to show greatertrength, determination and courage to face downhose who would end democracy and our way ofife and punish them with impunity no matter

how the rest of the world views us (this does notmean killing hundreds of civilians with CIA-pi loted mil i tary predator drones).

But isnt it past time to question the propriety

of an Afghan strategy that both parties endorse? As was the case in Korea, the United States

military did most of the fighting and took most ofhe losses as our allies wrung their hands on theidelines. If we are to bear the bulk and the bur-

den of fighting just wars alone or with minimalupport from our allies or the United Nations,hen our opinion is the only one that matters.

When they are willing to put action to their rheto-ic then and only then, would I suggest theyve

arned the right to speak and give advice. Untilhen, we either need to fight to win or not fight atall and protect the valuable lives and health of ouryoung sons and daughters.

General McChrystal may have lost the faiththe President and other politicians in Washingthat he can perform his duties well, but I guartee you that the most important group of peolooking to General McChrystal for direction strength have not. That group is the junior ocers and enlisted members of United States co

bat forces.

They may not admit it, but I suspect the vmajority are ecstatic to see a senior officer finspeak out for Washington to do the right thand either fight or leave. I simply hope that Geral McChrystals personal and professional safice does not fall on deaf ears throughout the per ranks of the United States military and tthe Chairman and other members of the JChiefs heed the warning as a rancher would hthe sound of coiled snakes rattle.


Predator Drones

Creating newterroristseveryday.


11/27

Brian Beyer



July 2011 marks the beginning of the with-

drawal of American troops from Afghanistan. How-

ver, as President Obama has said, We didn't say

we'd be switching off the lights and closing the door

behind us." As the war in Afghanistan will undoubt-

dly rage on through the remainder of Obamas

erm, the American public will grow increasingly

keptical of, if not downright against, the operation.

War weariness in Europe has caused governmentso collapse (the Netherlands) and prompted NATO

o declare an end date (albeit nonbinding) of 2014.

Eventually, just as Europe is planning to do, Amer-

ca will have to cease major combat operations.

This leaves Afghanistan in an interesting situa-

ion that the country has not known for years: it will

have to govern and police itself with minimal, if no,

nternational assistance. Pakistan, a regional power-

house, has high hopes of forging an unbreakable al-

iance with Afghanistan. However, India could

prove to be a remarkably difficult hurdle to clear.

Sadly, Afghanistan is a pawn in the

reat Paki-

tan-India

ivalry.

ndia

wishes to secure a presence in Afghanistan in o

to encircle Pakistan in an attempt to exert regiodominance. Pakistan, on the other hand, desire

play a pivotal role in Afghanistan in order to prev

Indian encirclement.

This same kind of game was played before f

the late 1990s to as recent as 2002. India prov

funding and arms to the Northern Alliance

military-political umbrella organization oppo

to Taliban rule. Pakistans powerful intellige

agency, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), gthe Taliban money, arms, and training so as to

vent the Indian backed Northern Alliance

gaining a foothold. The Taliban were prom

ousted by US and other foreign forces during

initial invasion of Afghanistan. India was vic

ous and Pakistan was sec

bitter wi

Afghanistan: Forever a Pawn


12/27


Today, Pakistan generally

ontinues to rely on hard power,

lthough covertly, while India is

winning over the Afghan people

hrough foreign aid and economic

development. As a result, Pakistan

s now, more than ever, desperateor a say in Afghan politics.

Despite official denial, it is well

known that the ISI retains close

inks with Taliban linked groups.

This bond is very strategic and

lever nonetheless. The ISIs

hought process is this: Pakistan

must continue to provide aid of all

orts to these groups in order to pre-

ent the US, Afghanistan, and its

llies from defeating them. Once its recognized that they are a force

hat cannot be defeated, Pakistan

an broker power deals between

hem and the Afghan government.

This gives Pakistan an incredible say

n Afghan policy, and would make

ndian encirclement impossible.

It appears that Pakistan is be-

oming somewhat frantic in trying

to find the right group to mediate

with. Recently, Pakistan has made it

well known that they would be in-

terested in facilitating talks between

the Haqqani network and the Af-

ghan government.

The Haqqani network wasstarted during the Soviet

Occu-

pation of

Af-

ghanistan du

the 1980s by

infamous mu

hedeen Maul

Jalaluddin

Haqqani. Du

the bloody oc

pation, which

presciently pallel to the cu

rent war in A

ghanistan,

Haqqani re-

ceived financ

and material

sistance from

Pakistans IS

and America

CIA in order

prevent Sovieincursion int

South Asia.

Haqqani and

fighters were

often considered some of the mo

ruthless and effective destroyer

the occupiers. However, whom

Charlie Wilson once considered

goodness personified, Jalaludd

Haqqani, his son Sirajuddin, an

their group ofloyal fighte


fghanistans new police force, funded by your tax dollars.


13/27


now considered one of the gravest

hreats to American and NATO

orces in Afghanistan. TheHaqqani network has claimed re-

ponsibility for a slew of attacks in

Afghanistan, most notably an as-

assination attempt on President

Hamid Karzai in 2008.

Why would an insurgent group

hat is so hostile to both the United

tates and the Afghan government,

nd is based in Pakistan be able to

have a say in the future of Afghani-

tan? The reason is becoming quite

lear: both Afghanistan and the US

ealize that the Haqqani network

annot be defeated, and the only

ther option is a political solution.

This is due largely to the fact that

heyre headquartered in the law-

ess North Waziristan region of

Pakistan. Due to their strategic lo-

ation, they are immune from an

attack by American ground forces

out of respect for Pakistani sover-

eignty. Also, since the network isdeemed an asset by Pakistani in-

telligence, there has been little in-

tention to tackle this radical

Islamist group by the Pakistani

army.

Luckily for Pakistan, it appears

that the plan is slowly working, al-

though with some bumps on the

way. Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of

Julaladdin, reportedly met with

President Karzai to discuss recon-

ciliation efforts. However, Karzai

vehemently denied the allegations,

which shows that he is not quite

ready to go public with the policy

shift. It is also widely believed that

Karzai forced Amrullah Saleh, di-

rector of Afghan intelligence, and

Hanif Atmar, interior minister, to

resign over their opposition to

talks with people like the

Haqqanis. Such actions by Karz

demonstrate that reconciliationpossible but distant.

Opposition to reconciliation

efforts can be heard loud and cl

in the United States. Senator Ca

Levin, chairman of the Senate

Armed Services committee de-

manded that the Haqqani netw

be put on them terrorist blackli

CIA director Leon Panetta said

that, I think

Its very difficult to proceed

with a reconciliation [between A

ghanistan and the Haqqani net-

work] thats going to be meanin

ful. Despite American criticism

appears that as Pakistani influe

on Afghan politics is waxing, an

American influence is waning.


nternational Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldier. Many ISAF troops (NATOs security force) are stationed in Afghanistan in a prolonged, no-win wa


14/27

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta


Secretary of State,

Hilary Clinton recentlyold the Pakistan govern-

ment that the UnitedStates would send an ad-ditional $500 million inaid to the country. The aidncludes American tax-

payer money on initiativeso help improve public

health, water distribution,and agriculture. Among thesenitiatives are projects includingbuilding a 60-bed hospital in Ka-achi and helping farmers export

mangos.In an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to

bridge the tension gap between the twocountries, Pakistan has now been ableo secure $500 million additional ex-

ra cash to its economy, at the sameime progressing its national inter-ests.

What is even morealarming is the recent newsabout Pakistans aid to theTaliban. The classifiedmilitary documents re-eased by WikiLeaks de-ails that the countrys In-

er-Service IntelligenceISI) has been securing the

Taliban along the Afghan-Pakistan border. SeniorTaliban officials toldNewsweek that, theyPakistan] feed us with

one hand and arrest andkill us with another.

United States aPakistan relations hnot been the best in

cent years, which wthe point of Mrs. Ctons return to the cotry. However, Pakishas continued to rein helping the UniStates strike Talibsanctuaries.

It seems for Pakistani government th

goal is an increased and plonged war in Afghanistan

several reasons.For one, Pakistan wants

establish itself as a regional player and to do so they need to h

some sort of influence with the T ban, a legitimate and recogniz

force in the same region. To g

this position it needs a group lthe Taliban to extend its pow

Not only do they need the T ban but they also need

United States hand in economic interests.

The Pakistani gernment knows that icontinues to showstrong face towa

terrorism it can continto funnel tons of Am

can aid into their counwhile at the same taiding the Taliban.

what side is Pakiultimately on? Wthats easy: Pakistanon Pakistans side j


Pakistan Leaked


15/27


as America is on Americas side.Pakistans battle against ter-

orism has been lackluster. Sui-cide bombers have killed manynnocent civilians in the coun-ry and public sentiment isurning against the American

war to the North. Many Paki-tanis now blame the United

States for its own terrorism in-ide its borders. Thus, the Paki-tani government now faces a

direct challenge from its citi-enry to not align itself to

closely with the United Statesor fear of intensified terrorism.

Pakistan has also plannedto buy nuclear reactorsfrom China, a move that

has alarmed the UnitedStates.

The deal goes beyond in-ernational norms of the non-

proliferation regime. Mrs. Clin-ton did not seem to raise the is-sue during her meeting with thePakistani government.

But, not only does this raisequestions in our role in Opera-tion Enduring Freedom and thelegitimacy of aid to Pakistan,

but it also raises economicquestions. Our country is stillfacing an alarming unemploy-ment rate with a recession stillcontinuing. For Mrs. Clinton,$500 million does not seemlike a large sum; however this isstill money that couldve beenused by the American taxpayer

for saving and investment thatultimately turns into produc-tion (a real stimulus).

The United States needs toreevaluate its position not onlyin Afghanistan and Pakistan

but also in its position in hand-ing out economic aid. In mostsituations, US aid only helps in


propping up regimesand continuing theirpower for our own interests. Instead of directly affecting the pple of that country, aflows through corrup

governments and indviduals who use thataid in their benefit.

In this case, Pstan is taking soof that aid in aidithe enemy for thown interests.

Pakistan is doublitiming our country.They, like the UnitedStates, have their owreasons for their wel

being. Prolonging thewar, aligning with oth

regional powers (theTaliban) and increastheir own influence atheir goals just as an

other nation. TheUnited States shouldrecognize this and stgiving Pakistan amon

with other nations tapayer money.

ulian Assange at a news conference. A former hacker, Julian runs the WikiLeaks website, which hosts leaked gov-rnment documents which were otherwise hidden from the public. He has received heavy flak from Washington.ource: urbanchristiannews.com


16/27

Jeremy Davis


The humble and respectable republic that wasnce America is long gone. In its place is an empire bentn forging the world into its military playground.

In his bookNemesis: The Last Days of the AmericanRepublic, Chalmers Johnson spells out the chilling reali-ies of the whats become Americas empire.

The United States today is like a cruise ship on theNiagara River upstream of the most spectacular water

falls in North America. Afew people on board have

begun to pick up a slighthiss in the background,to observe a faint haze ofmist in the air or on theirglasses, to note that theriver current seems to berunning slightly faster.But no one yet seems tohave realized that it is

almost too late tohead for shore.

Johnsonssomber warningis perhaps one ofthe most damag-ing critiques of a

misguided foreignpolicy ever put to print. The neo-conservat

who gleefully steer Americas interventionisteign policy are directing a once sturdy reputurned authoritarian empire to the edge of lapse.

Since the conclusion of World War IIthe rise of America as sole super power, theeign policy of the United States has been fu

by a culture of persistent militarism. This haturn corrupted our constitutional system of


Chalmers Johnsons Nemesis

merican militarism has reached the shores of virtually every continent on earth. All ataxpayer expense.

An Estonian soldier in Baghdad. Acan foreign policy often drags othecountries into unnecessary wars.


17/27


rnment, the American republic,nd democracy in general. This haslso brought us numerous scandalsf torture, illegal spying on U.S. citi-ens, fudging facts in order to justify

needless undeclared wars, and ancceptance of America as the

worlds policeman.In terms as to who reigns su-

reme in government war making,ne of Uncle Sams favorite pas-imes; Congress has been consistentn abdicating its constitutional au-hority to declare war. It has insteadhosen to empower an increasingly

unitary president with the ability tonitiate war via his own determina-ion. Congress lack of willingness torovide the necessary check on thexecutive has enabled the presidento initiate countless invasions such

s the ones in Iraq and Af-hanistan. Thisbreakdown of con-titutional govern-

ment as Johnsonrames it has re-ulted in an inter-

national U.S. he-emony that spanso the corners of thentire earth.

The extent to

which Americaslobal network ofmilitary bases

spans is quite startling. Ac-cording to the Department of De-fensesBase Structural Reportascited by Johnson, the United Statescurrently operates and maintainsapproximately 737 military bases inover 130 countries. He also revealsthat the Pentagon estimates that alloverseas U.S. military structures

collectively hold the worth of nearly$127 billion. Aside from the massiveeconomic distortion they propup domestically, a perhapsequally negative impact fer-mented by these bases is re-flected in the resentmentthey create in their host na-tions.

The hatred and opposi-tion generated by the pres-ence of U.S. forces in these

countries and the local cor-ruption that tends to accompany

them get nourished becausemany large segments of thecitizen population typicallyview American troops as anunjustified occupationalforce standing in their back-

yard. The picture painted bythese bases of America

around the world actually serve ugreater harm and have a hand increating the very thing they claim

be protecting us from.Johnson notes that America

does not need colonies in the trational and historical sense to be uderstood as an empire. Once upa time, you could trace the spreaimperialism by counting up colonies. Americas version of the col

is the military base; and by following the changing politics of globabasing, one can learn much abouour ever more all-encompassing perial footprint and the militarthat grows with it.

An entire chapter is also devin comparing the American empto those of Britain and Rome andpresents a choice in determining

which path the United States wilfollow. Johnson puts it this way:

America can either go the way ofBritish empire and essentially abdon its imperial aspirations insearch of a more democratic systof government (although Johnsohimself admits this transition wacarried out in the most effectivemanner) or the way of Rome andlose all attachments to a republicfavor of an authoritarian dictatoship.

In his final chapter titled The



18/27


19/27


Subject: ChinaStyle of Government: Good ol fashioned, soul-ending Communism

President: A brutal, godless dictator named Hu Jin-ao

According to the Foreign Policy magazine web-

ite, China has received nearly $1 billion dollars in

rants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, as of

uly of this year. This is a fund that China has do-

nated $16 million to over the past eight years. It is a

und that the American taxpayer has donated $5.5

illion to over the past eight years. China has re-

eived 60 times what they have donated to the fund.

Yes, this is the same China that owns hundreds of

illions of U.S. debt. It is the same China that has a

massive army and seems to make almost everything

ou own. Yet, the American government pours $5.5

illion of your money into a fund that China can

draw about a billion from. I am sure that the money

helps some people in China, but is it right to force,

ay, a struggling American single mother to pay forhe AIDS medication of some disease-ridden Chinese

hookers? Isnt the utopia that is communist China

upposed to take care of its people with the money

hey have exacted from their own citizens?

But that is only the beginning. According to an

Associated Press article published on the CNBC web-

ite, entitled Foreign Nations Offer Gulf Spill Aid to

US - for a Price, The U.S. spends roughly $30 mil-

ion per year altogether on foreign aid to China.

Think of that next time you drive on a shoddily paved

oad, or consider the state of some inner city schools,r consider the astronomically high U.S. debt. Con-

ider that the next time you read a story of some

amily being brutally murdered by Chinese govern-

ment officials for practicing their religion, or think of

ll the babies forcibly aborted due to the Chinese

overnments rather barbaric breeding policies.


Subject: PakistanStyle of Government: A federal republic, but in the eyof the scrutinizing observer, it is some kind of mafia made of Islamists and dictatorsPresident: Asif Ali Zadari - They also have a prime ministnamed Yousaf Raza Gillani

The nation of Pakistan is ravaged by war in the mountaon its shared border with Pakistan, and the people of Pakiscontinue to suffer under draconian laws which lead to such

things as the stoning of rape victims. Pakistan is perpetuallhostile towards its neighbor, and our ally, India, and its cotinuing to make deals with China which scare the wits out oevery Sean Hannity-worshipping neocon. Yet, PresidentObama signed a bill in October of last year which will send

whopping $7.5 billion to Pakistan over the next 5 years, ac-cording to an article on the Newsweek website entitled ATimeline of U.S. Aid to Pakistan. Since 9/11, the U.S. govement has given even more than that.

In August of 2009 the Foreign Policy magazine websitepointed out that the bulk of U.S. aid sent to Pakistan ends ugoing to the corruption-ravaged Pakistani army and intelli

gence services. In an article penned by Azeem Ibrahim, titlHow America is Funding Corruption in Pakistan, Ibrahimgoes on to mention that both the army and intelligence ser

vices are scarcely controlled by the civilian government, anthat the money often winds up in the hands of individuals.

you thought the idea of being forced to pay for the medicalcare of Chinese citizens was bad enough, the idea of sendin

your money to kleptocrats in Pakistan, a nation still plagueby the idea of honor killings, must be even more troublinWe have enough parasites masquerading as useful workersemployed by our own government to pay for.

Now, you may be burdened for AIDS victims no matter

where they are. So helping people in China with AIDS is nobad idea at all to you. Or, you may like the idea of funding tneedy in Pakistan. Dont misunderstand me, I too wish to a

viate the suffering, and I strongly believe in voluntarily heling the poor and needy. But, the key operative in all of thisthe word force. You are forced against your will to pay for

AIDS victims in China. You are forced against your will tofund a corrupt group of military leaders who are hardly ac-countable to the people they supposedly serve. You have nochoice in the matter. You may find spending your money osuch causes ludicrous or immoral, yet you cannot opt out

you pay taxes to the federal government.

This is the first entry in what I would like to call the foreign aid horror files. Each issue I will pick two or tountries which receive aid from the U.S. government, aka: the American taxpayer, and detail some of the fianvolved. We will hear grim tales of theft, extortion, shocking immorality, murder, corruption, greed and m

more, all fueled by the hard-earned cash of the American worker.

Foreign Aid Horror Files Brendon DeMeo


20/27



On many occasions, we have heard of what the Talibans. Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the

American media has constantly shown it's audience ofwho and what the Taliban are. Often many times, therere misconceptions and misinformation. In the begin-

ning of the invasion, many called the Taliban terroristswho protected their sacred leader Osama bin Laden.However, are the Taliban terrorists or insurgents? Who

re they really? What funds them? Are they striving for alobal jihad?

What is a terrorist?

First off, in order to fully understand and consider aroup [or an individual] a terrorist is to decipher the

definition of a terrorist. According to dictionary.com, aerrorist is someone [or a group] who advocates the usef terrorism. The definition of a terrorism is the use of

violence and threats to intimidate for political purposes.Also, the Taliban are not Al Qaeda [ a terrorist group].

o in essence, by deciphering the definition of terroristnd terrorism, we immediately can cross it out when it

omes to the Taliban. The Taliban are not a global terror-st institution. Rather, they existed in Afghanistan pre/11 and for several years as well. They not only existed,

but governed Afghanistan. Terrorists are usually rogueroups or individuals, each having a local problem to

deal with. Terrorists also do not have armies and oftendo not have a flag to represent [especially in case of Mus-im terrorists]. A couple examples are Somalia's Al Sha-ab and the most obvious of all, Al Qaeda.

What is an insurgent?

The definition of insurgent is different, however. Accord-ng to dictionary.com, an insurgent is a person whoises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a per-on who engages in armed resistance to a government oro the execution of its laws; rebel. In today's case, the

Taliban can qualify as a rebel/insurgent group, especiallyfter the fact that they are no longer officially in power.

The Taliban's political and military fight against the Af-han Karzai government is also what qualifies them asn insurgent group. The Taliban also carry some ele-

ments of nationalism, just as they have during the earlier

Soviet and British invasions. Insurgents don't have require uniforms and have guerrilla tactics.

Who are the Taliban?

Although there are many misconceptions about the Tban, it is believed that they originated after the Sovietwithdrew troops from Afghanistan in 1989. The literameaning of taliban is students, or religious studenMany of the Taliban were former Afghan fighters of thMujahadeen during the 1980s. A majority of the Talimembers are Pashtun [which a large, significant popu

tion of Afghans are]. It is widely believed that the fouder of the Taliban is Mullah Mohammed Hasan Reh-mani, a peg legged former fighter against the Sovietsduring the early days of Russia's occupation of Afghastan. The current leader is Mullah Mohammed Omar

According to Taliban and militant Central Asian Islamgroups expert Ahmed Rashid, the Taliban did providesome sort of stability after a devastating 20 years of win Afghanistan. Before the Taliban were an official grothe country was in devastating condition. It was mostdivided by many local warlords. The whole country w

basically disintegrated. For example, the country's catal Kabul was controlled mostly by the Tajik governmof Burhanuddin Rabbani before 1994 [the emergencethe Taliban].

Before 1994,the country was in such a terrible shape teven international aide workers feared working in Af-ghanistan, especially rough regions like Kandahar. Coruption also prevailed among local warlords. Many ofthem sold everything to Pakistani traders, includingitems of local civilians. Most of those items were also len. At often times, the local warlords would seize peoples homes and give them off to their political supporers. Sometimes, they would also kidnap children and them for their sick pleasures. A number of these activties were committed by the once glorified Mujahadee

This was the prevalent situation in Afghanistan, beforthe 1994 emergence of the Taliban. According to theTaliban, since they vehemently opposed these localatrocities, they set an agenda of their ownrestoringpeace, disarming the population and restore the Islamintegrity in Afghanistan.

Terrorists or Insurgents?Jihan Huq


21/27


Thus, since the Taliban were in political power, they pro-ided some sort of stability for the country.

Global Jihad? What Strives Them to do Whathey do?

Historically speaking, the Taliban have only engaged inonflicts in Afghanistan and in the border region of Paki-tan [although the Pakistani Taliban are different from

Afghan Taliban in certain ways].Taliban resistance began after the U.S invasion of Af-

hanistan and practically dismantling the Taliban gov-rnment. Here is where the problem lies.

Ever since the fall of Kabul, the Taliban have been amassive resistance force against the pro Western govern-ment [or Karzai to be exact]. This is what they are usingo gain more popular ground. During 2003-2004, more

Taliban resistance increased. Funny thing, because a lotf neocon experts previously claimed that the fall of

Kabul would cease all insurgent activity [Max Boot, forne].

What drove the very same people against Communismnd the Soviets is what is driving the same issues right

nowimperialism/nation building. Back when theoviets were their enemies, the Afghan Mujahadeen

despised them not merely for nationalism, butather for their hatred of Communism andodlessness. This is why the Taliban isur Mujahadeen fighters. They see the

American troops as occupiers. The Af-hans [including Taliban] believe that the

Americans are there for oil and to forciblydemocratize or liberalize them. The

Taliban and the Mujahadeen have a strong history of jecting secularism. Their faith in God is also another tributing factor to resisting the occupying forces. Tribism and maybe xenaphbia can play that as well. Sincemany Afghans are located with a certain tribe, tribaliis very crucial to afghan life. Fear or distrust of anyon

who isn't Afghan can be a psychological thing, since tBritish, the Soviets and Americans are all the non Af-ghan/Muslim occupiers.

Conclusion

While reading this article, one may conclude that thispro Taliban regime, which is not. The Taliban are locaresistance forces dedicated to defeat the Americans a

Westerners due to their rejection of imperialism, occution and secularism. If we are to win in Afghanistan, wmust decipher who we are fighting. Initially, it was AlQaeda. However, now it is the Taliban. It is my opiniothat we should not fight the local resistance [since the

represent a significant amount of the Afghan popula-tion]. Since Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan, weshould use our intelligence to dismantle them and widraw troops from Afghanistan. It is nonsensical to picnew battle [the Taliban], when we came in for anothe[al Qaeda]. Though they are the largest resistance forthere are still minor ones [Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin aHaqqani Network]. The Taliban are obviously the besfunded and influential.

History has revealed that Afghanistan is the graveyarempires. Whether it be the Mujahadeen or the Taliba

Afghanistan is no place to nation build, or pick the wrfight with. We should always take heed of what the Foders have said about nation building and imperialismToo bad Washington is reluctant to listen.


Taliban Funds

Most experts agree that a majority of Taliban contri-butions come from the selling of opium. In fact, alarge portion of Afghanistan's economy is also basedon opium/heroin goods. Often times, they will sell

opium to purchase weapons and sometimes even buyit's support [a very tactical move, might I add].

Historically speaking, the Taliban have a good recordof pro opium policy. Previously, they have providedMuslim farmers to grow opium for their personaleconomy. However, after they first captured Kanda-har, they decided to legalize all drugs for economicgain. They even began to collect the Zakat [charity] onthe dealers of opium to give to the poor. Many localswere actually grateful because the Taliban allowedthem to grow their own opium in peace. Of course, the

policy was done for mostly economic and political rea-sons.


22/27


Now that coalition forces have justrecently suffered their deadliestmonth yet in the conflict in Afghani-stan, it now it has become more cru-cial than ever to rethink the strategy ofthe United States and its allies in theregion. Currently, the cornerstone ofthis strategy rests upon two key fac-tors winning over the local peoplesof the region, and training local forcesto carry the burden when, and if, coa-lition forces leave the region.

At least on the exterior, these goalsin Afghanistan do make some sense.The only possible way to succeed via acontinued military occupation of Af-ghanistan is to attain and bank on thesupport of the local peoples. Also, if

western powers are ever to withdrawfrom the region, local forces will have

to be able to maintain whatever struc-ture these forces leave in their wake.

However, while this strategy is notcompletely outlandish and does showsome merit on the part of militarystrategists in that they are leaningmore towards localized models thatentail comprehension of diverse localfactors, the question still must beasked is this strategy actually possi-

ble to carry out and have the soughtafter effects in the region? Can theUnited States and its allies actually

win over the peoples of Afghanistanand western Pakistan, and can thesesame powers possibly train forces that

will remain peacekeepers in the yearsto come? Despite the fact that I ad-mire the intentions of the militaryscurrent strategy in this region, I do notthink that their plan is in fact possible.It seems to me that rather we arefighting an unwinnable war to winover a people that we do not and can-


Elliot Engstrom

Leaving the Graveyard


23/27


not understand, and that by fundinghe Afghani security forces of today,

we are inevitably funding our enemyf tomorrow, just as our nation has

mistakenly done so many times inhe past in this very region.

I cannot foretell the future. Noran anyone else. However, I canomment on what is likely to occur.

And, in constructing such a model,wo of the most important subjectso understand are history andraxeology, or human behavior.

An attempt by the United Stateso make Afghanistan a stable, west-rn-friendly state is by no means a

new happening. The date of the be-innings of our intervention in theegion could be debated, but a de-ent starting point is the late 1970s

when President Carter put forth the

Carter Doctrine, which stated thathe United States would defend itsnterests in the Middle East.

This doctrine just barely pre-eded the Soviet invasion of Af-hanistan, and it was this invasionhat saw the beginnings of Americanorces, at this point being mostly

CIA and other such agencies, whichwere attempting to hamper the So-viet forces by funding the Afghaniresistance.

Now, there is no room here for ahistory of American involvement in

Afghanistan. However, what mustbe noted is that during the 1980sand 1990s, a pattern developed in

the Middle East the United Stateswould fund a group in the hope ofcombating some common enemy,and then in later years the groupfunded with American taxpayermoney would inevitably end up

turning against the United Statesfew prominent examples of this

Al Qaeda, who received $6 billiofrom the United States from 1981992, the Afghani Taliban, who wreceiving US foreign aid up to th

very minute American forces en-tered their country (and continuto receive US foreign aid through

Pakistani backchannels) and Saddam Hussein, who received chemcal weapons from the US during Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s, weaons he later used to kill Americansoldiers.


This, though briefly put, is thehistory, or the what. So now mustome an examination of the why,r the element of praxeology. Forbviously, our attempts to forgeriendships in the region in the past

have failed. Our friends have be-

ome our enemies, in fact our worstnemies.There are several possible expla-

nations for why this occurs. How-ver, mine is quite simple we do

not understand these people, we donot understand this region, we donot understand Islamic culture, and,o be quite blunt, we never will. It is

not a wrongdoing by the West toook at the Middle East throughWestern eyes. Rather, it is the only

way that a westerner possiblycanlook at the Middle East.On top of this extremely problem-atic misunderstanding of the MiddleEast by Western peoples then comesanother layer of problems, these be-ing the base problems of interven-

tion in any context, amplified by theextreme foreignness and instabilityof the Middle East as a whole. Theconsequences of intervention in anyscenario are so unpredictable, somany, and so far-reaching that noone can possibly intervene and suc-cessfully fulfill their objectives with-out in the process creating a dozennew problems. This is seen with thefederal government intervening instates in their own country how

much greater then are the problewhen intervening in a region likethe Middle East?

All this now brings us back tothe point on considering the futu

As I mentioned previously, I cansay what the future holds. Howe

I can make an educated guess. Abased on analyses of both historyand human behavior, it is safe tothat by both indirectly and direcfunding the training of a new mitary force in Afghanistan, we verlikely are creating our enemy of tmorrow. For when these peoplethat we are now training realize tthe United States is not leaving, they are not in fact a free state, tthey have become a part of the

Soviet troops roaming around Afghanistan

during the height of the Cold War. The Sovi-

ets were forced to withdraw after fightingheavy resistance from the Mujahedeen.


24/27

Daniel Suraci


American empire, and that if they want to live culturallyndependent of western influence they will have to forci-ly remove Western elements within their borders, iteems extremely probable that they will do exactly that.

To say that we are creating a force that will do what wexpect it to do in the future is a wish at best. The realitys that we do not and cannot understand what is truly aoreign mindset, and our best course of action would beo distance ourselves from what is and will be for many

ears of region of perpetual conflict.


On July 11, 2010, twin bombings occurred in

Kampala, Uganda, killing 76 people. The bombeare believed to be linked to al Qaeda, through a Smalian group Al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab is a 'militgroup' which controls most of southern and centSomalia. Somalia itself is split into multiple fac-tions, despite the typical Western view that therein fact a solidified government in Somalia that hpresident, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.

In response to the attacks, the African Uniontaken action and compiled a response team to attack the threat, under the orders of one Somali fa

tion under Sharif Ahmed. This should come as nsurprise after a cursory review of Somalian histowhich shows that the country has been a playthinof Western forces for the past century.

Should America be supporting the African Union's initiative to combat al-Shabaab? The answis a resounding no. Somalia has been in a state onearly perpetual war and puppet governments si1920, beginning with invasions from the British,control by the Italians as a protectorate, World WII, and British and Italian control until 1960. By1969, a successful coup overthrew the President,leading to a dictatorship in 1976, and the Ogadenwar between Somalia and Ethiopia.

Somalia was, of course, was part of the Cold wOriginally an ally of the Soviet Union, the Sovietbetrayed them during the Ogaden war, and so Somalia allied with the United States. Holding a kegeographical position, Somalia was flooded withdollars, but when the Cold War came to an end, tcountry's political factions became divided. Constant militant uprisings throughout the 1980s evtually turned to civil war.

The Somali Civil War was influenced by a fail'peacekeeping' mission by the United Nations, leing to a United States intervention. Clinton's faito achieve 'peace' through war in Somalia lead tosecond United Nations peacekeeping mission, leing to the creation of a Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which Sheikh Sharif Ahmed noruns, known as the single most corrupt governmin the world.

This mess was compounded on by both the B

Uganda Bombing


25/27


dministration. Al-Shabaab hadery little support until Bushack violent warlords against theroup. As a direct result, al-

Shabaab gained favor in the eyesof Somalians. So the Bush reac-ion? Fund the Ethiopians, the

Somalians' most hated enemy, to

kill them. The result? More sup-port for al-Shabaab by the Soma-ians. When this invasion failed,l-Shabaab was in a position ofuch strong popularity as to be ahreat to the transitional govern-

ment, which were now beingiven funding and massivemounts of weapons by the Bushdministration. Al-Shabaab's

popularity relies entirely on their

ppearance of fending off foreign

invaders. Again, even with ithappening before their eyes,American leaders failed to seeblowback occur.

This cursory review of historyshows the question is notwhether or the not the UnitedStates should interfere in Soma-

lia now after the Uganda bomb-ings, but whether Americashould continue its support of aregime put into place by interna-tional interests. At least, unlikeYemen, the United States is notbringing its own troops into So-malia.

The country of Somalia hasbeen facing unrest due in largepart to the interests of foreign

governments, and secondly to

domestic religious and clan coflicts. The only question wortasking is what will the ramifictions be for further United Stainvolvement?

First, the United States cannot 'promote the democraticpractice' as is its so-called mis

sioned in nation building by installing a government throughfunding. It sends the messageDemocracy is fine, as long asyou democratically vote to agrwith us. The Somalian peopare obviously sick of foreign invaders telling them how to livso much so that a very traditioally moderate Muslim populagave way to al-Shabaab. Whe

an international force tells pe


how to live, their natural reaction is to reject the for-ign invaders. This has been the case throughout al-

most all of history, and will remain so.The second issue is if this greater international

overnment does in fact represent even the desires ofhe Somali people or is capable of fulfilling their mis-ion. Since the bombings, the African Union has in-reased its troop force in Somalia to 8,000, funded

hus far with over $176 million United States taxpayerdollars. A reoccurring problem throughout the occu-pation (which it is) of AU troops in Somalia is that theSomalian people and troops do not trust them. TheWashington Times reports that Somali troops and AUroops do not trust each other and have been unable tooordinate or accomplish much.

Last, it should be obvious that further involvementn Somalia accomplishes nothing but further helping al

Qaeda and al-Shabaab remain entrenched, and in facttrengthen their stature in the area. That leaves Amer-

ca with two alternatives: kill them all or leave. Theirst strategy has been shown to be impossible, fromVietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. Even where it has

een tried, more militant groups fending off the for-ign invader have popped up. War crimes have beenommitted. Massive amounts of dollars have been

hemorrhaged. And defeat still seems inevitable to eve-yone but pundits. The second strategy remains un-ried in modern times. Perhaps, it is finally the timeor America to simply try leaving.


26/27




27/27

Anyone who has ever looked intothe glazed eyes of a soldier dying

on the battlefield will think hard

before starting a war.

- Otto von Bismarck

olicyHandbookPForeign

Documents

FPHandbook_issue5